Bill C-5

One Canadian Economy Act

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act , which establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. In the case of goods and services, that Act provides that a good or service that meets provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements that pertain to the interprovincial movement of the good or provision of the service. In the case of workers, it provides for the recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and for the issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations. It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Building Canada Act , which, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to add the name of a project and a brief description of it to a schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the project is in the national interest;
(b) provides that determinations and findings that have to be made and opinions that have to be formed under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations for an authorization to be granted in respect of a project that is named in Schedule 1 to that Act are deemed to have been made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part;
(c) requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document; and
(d) requires that minister, each year, to cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember standing in that corner when the Liberal Party was the third party in the House and its members protested so strongly against Stephen Harper starting to use time allocation on bills. It had happened, at that point, nine times in 40 years, then it began to be every bill, but nothing from the Harper government was as breathtaking as the programming motion put forward for Bill C-5.

I ask the hon. government House leader to reconsider and respect parliamentary democracy in this place.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are presenting Bill C-5, their so-called free trade and labour mobility in Canada act, as a serious effort to strengthen the economy, but once again, it is all promise and no plan. They promised homes, with none built. They promised pipelines, with none delivered. They promised a budget, which is still missing.

They have now tabled another bill filled with talking points but no mention of pipelines, no plan for infrastructure and no answers on how this will actually move our economy forward. It is the same Liberal formula: big talk, no delivery, no pipelines, no housing, no budget and just headlines.

If the government wants to unlock the economy, why are pipelines and major infrastructure missing entirely from this so-called productivity plan? Is this just another press release?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 was just introduced in the House for debate on Friday. We have only had a few hours of debate on it already. The Liberals are up to their old tricks again, trying to ram through legislation without giving Parliament the opportunity to debate this bill. We know that it would not repeal the “no more pipelines” act or the “no more tankers” act. We know that it would not help with anything in resource development.

Why are the Liberals back to their old ways of shutting down debate and undermining democracy?

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that tariffs actually made Bill C-5 as presented to the floor. None of this really matters until we streamline all the legislation, regulations and jurisdictional issues currently in place.

My question is on process. As the government negotiates with the U.S.A. on trade, does the government negotiate provincial resources first, and then consult with provinces, or does the government get provincial consent before negotiating trade based on provincial resources? Which is it?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Guelph.

It is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-5 to create one Canadian economy. As this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to deliver a speech since the election, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the great people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for putting their trust in me to be their representative. Whether someone voted for me or not, I take it to heart each and every day that I am here to represent them, to be their voice in Ottawa and to ensure that the diverse needs of our region are met and are reflected by our government.

I would not be here without the work of an incredible campaign team led by Morgan, Leo, Tess, Norman, Chloe, Lilah, Lea, Natasha, Maira, Kiran, Fei and so many more, including hundreds of volunteers from all regions in my riding. I thank them for their long hours, their dedication, their hard work, and their belief in me and the work that we are doing. This victory is as much theirs as it is mine.

I thank my parents and my sister for their support and want to give a special shout-out to my nephews Haiden, Beckham and Sawyer for bringing so much joy to the campaign. More than anything, I want to thank my wonderful partner, Anastasia, for being there with me and for me every step of the way. I know this is a hard job that requires a lot of sacrifice for me to be away from her and from our home, and it is much appreciated.

This year, our country has been faced with an unprecedented challenge in this lifetime with the election of U.S. President Donald Trump and the unjustified and illegal tariffs he has wrought on our country. It has been with a great sense of pride that our country has come together in defiance of this threat. As a country, we realized that we needed to diversify our trade around the world, as well as build up our internal markets by tearing down interprovincial trade barriers.

One of our government’s first orders of business since this election was to table the one Canadian economy act. Canada's strength has always come from its people, but too often, our economy has not reflected that same unity. Outdated trade barriers, and fragmented and balkanized regulatory systems have made it harder for Canadians to build, innovate and thrive. We have been working with 13 provincial and territorial economies instead of one Canadian economy, and that has come at cost.

Whether it is a trucker trying to move goods across the provincial border, a nurse seeking work in another jurisdiction, or a business in B.C. trying to sell into the market here in Ontario, the message that we heard has been the same: It should not be this hard to do business in Canada. The two parts of the one Canadian economy act would change that. First, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act would remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility so that Canadians and businesses could move, work and grow across the country with fewer obstacles.

Right now, Canada is losing billions of dollars a year in productivity and economic output because of fragmented internal markets. A recent estimate from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute pegged the cost of internal trade barriers at up to $200 billion in lost GDP. That is not a rounding error. That is a missed opportunity the size of an entire provincial economy.

Further, studies have shown that removing these trade barriers could lower the prices that people pay for goods by up to 15%. Needless to say, it is imperative and a no-brainer to move ahead with these changes. That is just the macroeconomic picture. On the ground, it is even more frustrating. Small businesses looking to grow and access new markets across provincial lines face hurdles that feel arbitrary. Workers trained to national standards find themselves unable to cross provincial borders without getting recertified. Consumers are facing fewer choices and higher prices.

The core idea of Bill C-5 is this: If a good, service or professional qualification meets the regulatory standards of a province or territory and those standards are comparable to federal ones, then it should be recognized federally for the purposes of internal trade and labour mobility. Canadians increasingly want to buy local, and not just from their province. They want to buy Canadian. By supporting efforts to harmonize standards and expand inter-provincial sales, we are giving consumers more choice and local producers more reach.

Another area where we can expect gains is in the direct-to-consumer alcohol market. This would be a game-changer to ensure that we have the amazing wines and microbrews from B.C. available here in Ontario.

I want to acknowledge the work of our provincial and territorial partners. This is not a federal-only story, even if this legislation is only with respect to federal jurisdiction. From coast to coast to coast, provinces are taking initiative. They are reviewing outdated exceptions, simplifying regulatory frameworks and demonstrating a growing willingness to work together.

Nova Scotia's free trade and mobility within Canada act, Ontario's memoranda of understanding with six other provinces to harmonize standards and reduce red tape, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador signing bilateral agreements to improve co-operation, and B.C.'s economic stabilization act are concrete, collaborative steps that Bill C-5 complements perfectly.

Second, as the Prime Minister mentioned during the campaign, Canada needs to do things that have not been imagined or were not thought possible at a speed we have not seen before. We need to seize the incredible opportunities at our disposal and build nation-building projects, such as interprovincial electrical grid interties, to better trade within Canada, and invest in ports to diversify our trade away from the United States. The proposed mechanism to do that is the building Canada act.

This new act would allow a single minister, after consulting with the provinces and indigenous peoples, to declare projects in the national interest and pre-approve them subject to conditions geared to protecting the environment. The Prime Minister further declared that projects would not be declared in the national interest and imposed upon provinces that are not willing.

Make no mistake. Bill C-5 proposes extraordinary powers that are only justified in an extraordinary time. Many would agree we are in that situation today. However, I would like to point out a few aspects of the bill that should be studied at committee if it passes second reading.

First, while it is hard to think it was not that long ago, the first ministers' meeting from just a week and a half ago produced a rigorous list of criteria that would inform whether a project can be declared in the national interest. However, the way the legislation is written would allow for unnamed factors to also drive decision-making. This should be carefully scrutinized at committee.

Second, the legislation would give a minister the ability to exempt any national interest project from an existing law or regulation based on the advice of a minister. If this type of power is to be in the hands of a minister, it is important that there be disclosure and transparency in how that power is going to be used.

Third, the powers this legislation proposes are due to be valid for five full years. We are currently living in a crisis, an extraordinary circumstance brought on by the illegal and unjustified tariffs from President Trump. I absolutely believe that if we talk to steel and aluminum workers or workers in the automotive sector, they will confirm just that. However, this legislation is due to be in effect beyond that, beyond what will be at least one more federal election, and we need to consider how this legislation could be used in bad faith by a future government.

Where there are issues with existing environmental laws causing undue and unacceptable delays in permitting projects in our country, I believe they can be fully reviewed and amended, hopefully obviating the need for these measures in the future. When a small business in Squamish wants to ship products across the country, it should be able to do that without running into arbitrary provincial rules, likewise if a health care worker wants to practise in Sechelt.

I can see my time is running out. I thank all members for their consideration. I look forward to questions.

Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the Whole

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of misleading, I rise with respect to the notice that I provided to you under Standing Order 48, concerning the statements that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources made in a committee of the whole on Wednesday evening.

In brief, the minister repeatedly denied, when questioned, that politicians would be empowered to pick projects of national interest under the Liberal government's project development legislation that is now before Parliament. However, that is the very essence of what Bill C-5 proposes to empower the government to do. As we know, it is a contempt to mislead the House of Commons or any of its committees deliberately.

I will therefore argue that the minister misled the committee of the whole, giving rise to a prima facie contempt. First, the minister's statements during the committee of the whole on Wednesday evening flatly contradict Bill C-5 itself.

I asked the minister, “how do political, hand-picked projects give investors certainty?” The minister replied, “the politicians do not pick the projects.”

I asked again, soon after, for clarity, “the minister said earlier, and kept trying to claim, that he does not approve projects, but his own bill says he does. Is that not true?” The minister answered, “I think what we said is that we do not pick the projects.”

These responses were clear and direct. They were answers to very specific questions about whether the minister himself would select projects deemed to be in the national interest through Bill C-5, and the legislation shows that he would.

Bill C-5 would explicitly give the minister the authority to approve or deny projects. This authority appears in several key provisions of the bill.

Part 2(c):

requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document.

Further, clause 5(1) of the bill grants the Governor in Council and cabinet the authority to designate projects as being in the national interest, but only on the recommendation of the minister. It states:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a brief description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.

The minister also holds the authority to remove projects from schedule 1. That power is set out in the deletion clause:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.

These provisions, directly from Bill C-5, make it absolutely clear that the minister and the Governor in Council do pick the projects. That is the fundamental mechanism of the bill.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 82, provides a list of established grounds for contempt, including “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. This point is reiterated at page 112.

The importance of accurate information being provided to Parliament has been underscored in a number of rulings, including that made by one of your predecessors on March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates:

This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten.

Speaker Milliken shared a similar view in a ruling on February 1, 2002, on page 8581 of the Debates, when he said, “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.”

There is a well-established test for determining whether deliberately misleading information has been provided, which, for example, the Speaker explained in his February 15, 2024, ruling, at page 21146 of the Debates: “It must be proven that the statement was misleading; it must be established that, when making a statement, the member knew it to be incorrect; and finally, it must be demonstrated that the member intended to mislead the House.”

In the circumstances, I would respectfully submit that all three branches of this test can be made out. First, the content of Bill C-5, which I cited earlier, plainly contradicts the minister's answers.

Second, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has been held up by the Liberal government ever since the spring's election as the man who is supposed to get major resource projects launched. There can be no way that he is not intimately familiar with the details of Bill C-5, the policy for which it stands and the government's intentions for how to put it into effect.

Third, we must recall the context of the minister's answers. He was intensely questioned on the floor of the House of Commons for four hours, on the Liberals' terrible record over the last 10 years in the resource sector and trying to defend and spin his Prime Minister's signature bill, which had already been attracting a significant degree of scrutiny from all corners.

In any event, intention is not something that, I would respectfully submit, requires ironclad proof like a confession. Indeed, the procedure and House affairs committee, at paragraph 15 of its 50th report, presented in March 2002, acknowledges that intention may well be a matter for committee investigation:

As [then clerk of the House] Mr. Corbett explained to the Committee, it is not uncommon for inaccurate statements to be made in the course of debate or Question Period in the House. The issue is whether the statements were made deliberately, with the intent of misleading the House or its Members. In the case where a Member later admits to having knowingly provided false information – as in the Profumo case – the issue of intent is clear. In the absence of such an admission, however, it rests with the Committee to examine all of the circumstances and determine whether the evidence demonstrates an intention to mislead.

Finally, there is just one further procedural point I should add. Generally speaking, questions of privilege that arise in a committee setting are supposed to come before the House only by way of a report from the committee first, but the nature of committees of the whole, which are single-event bodies, complicates the ability to raise concerns that arise out of their deliberations.

You will recall that in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the House frequently sat in committees of the whole. A similar question of privilege arose, on which Speaker Rota addressed this procedural angle in his July 22, 2020, ruling, at page 2701 of the Debates, “I accept that the particular circumstances of this situation, notably the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format, do make it appropriate to bring the matter to the Speaker.”

In conclusion, I would submit that the necessary thresholds have been met here, allowing for you to make a prima facie finding. Should you agree, in order to allow for the error to be fully and properly cleared and to ensure appropriate respect for the overarching importance of government accountability to Parliament, to all of us who represent the people, I intend to propose referring the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for further consideration.

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and got the impression that he has grievances against the government and that he disagrees with its actions.

Did I misunderstand? Is this member preparing to vote in favour of gagging debate on the important bill C-5?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to give a speech in the House of Commons, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to spend 30 seconds of my speech thanking my volunteers, my family, and my wonderful community for sending me back here for the third time to represent the great people of Northumberland—Clarke. I thank them all. Their contributions were immeasurable and amazing.

Now I am going to talk about the business of today, which is Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is divided into two different pieces of legislation or parts. The first is the free trade and labour mobility act in Canada; the second is the building Canada act.

The free trade and labour mobility act has also been divided into two. There are two major initiatives within it. Both have to do with federal standards. The first is to say that any product or service that is authorized or licensed by the province would now be recognized by the federal government. In a similar vein, any provincially recognized profession would now be recognized federally.

The second part of the bill is with respect to the building Canada act. The building Canada act has to do with getting projects built that are in the “national interest” of Canada. This legislation is quite ironic because it really says that all those walls, which were put in place over the last decade to stop major projects, would be removed if major projects were in the national interest. Why not just remove those walls to begin with? However, I digress.

Most of my comments will be about the free trade and labour mobility act. The member for Lakeland did a fantastic job. I recommend her short and pithy, but poignant, speech about the building Canada act to anyone who has the opportunity to check it out. She was right on point. However, when it comes to the free trade and Canada act, I think it is important to look at a little bit of context.

Members should remember that not too long ago we had a federal election. Of course, one of the major themes or discussion points in that election was what Canada's response would be to the Trump tariffs, to the pressure coming from perhaps limited access to our greatest trading partner. Both major parties said we should look at trading more within Canada. Numbers such as $200 billion were thrown out there as the amount of additional economic benefits that could come from eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and increasing trade within Canada.

I just want to read a couple of quotes from the Prime Minister on the election trail. On April 5, he said, “Our government has committed to remove all federal restrictions on mobility by Canada Day. Free trade in Canada. Free mobility by Canada Day”. On April 17, the Prime Minister said, “Secondly, to commit the federal government to do its part by Canada Day... So, free trade in Canada by Canada Day”. On April 20, the Prime Minister said, “Our government will do our part for free trade in Canada. We will legislate the removal of all federal restrictions by July 1st. Free trade in Canada by Canada Day”.On April 21, the Prime Minister said, “And we'll work with the provinces to make sure all our health care professionals can work anywhere in Canada, as part of a drive for free trade in Canada by Canada Day.”

It is pretty clear what the Prime Minister committed to. He committed to having no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1, specifically, neither provincial and federal. That is what free trade in Canada by Canada Day means. The reality is that that will not happen even if this legislation gets passed by July 1. The reason is that the scope of this legislation is so very limited. It is limited to products, services and occupations that are federal in nature.

The reality is that most products and services, or at least a large portion of them, are regulated by the provinces. Most occupations are regulated provincially. For example, if a nurse who was accredited in B.C. wants to move to Ontario, they have to be re-accredited in Ontario. This legislation will not affect that. There will be a very limited impact on labour mobility in Canada by July 1, even going forward. With respect to products and services that is also usually the case. The products are regulated at the provincial level. The barriers then stop interprovincial trade from occurring.

I have a spoiler alert to everyone out there: The Liberals have already broken a promise. We will not have free trade in Canada by Canada Day.

There was a much more sensible approach. Instead of misleading Canadians during the election, they could have done what our leader, Pierre Poilievre, did and actually have a plan that would work, that would deliver real financial and economic benefits for Canada.

The first part would be to incentivize provinces. What is happening here is that the government is failing to meet the moment. We had an opportunity. Often, crises come with opportunities. There was a silver lining. It was creating momentum towards free trade. We saw the premiers working on their own accord to tear down barriers, but the federal government could have had a big role.

In accordance with the Conservatives' campaign promise, the government could have provided financial incentive. It could have included in this legislation that if the provinces tear down x barrier, they will get this much more money from the federal government. The best part about this is that these types of benefits actually pay for themselves. As Trevor Tombe and others have written, the financial benefit of actually reducing barriers, and not just making a press conference or a show of it, is hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could share some of the benefit from that with the provinces, but it chose not to.

The other part is that the government could have worked with provinces to create that Blue Seal program, allowing nurses, doctors and other health care professionals to work from coast to coast. Instead, the government has sort of gone from elbows up to turn, tuck tail and run. It continues to walk away from anything that is difficult or hard. The government could have used the momentum it had gathered, worked with premiers who are more than willing. I must say, our premiers have done a great job in many respects to tear down these barriers, but federal leadership here would have been invaluable. However, once again, the government, well, it just does not do “hard”.

For example, one thing the government could have done to make major progress was work to eliminate various trucking standards. This may not sound like the fanciest or the most exciting topic in the world, but it is incredibly important, because nearly every product we receive that goes on the shelves goes in a truck at some point.

Right now, we have a myriad of different trucking regulations, from different weights to different safety restrictions. Some estimates put an increase in freight rates at 8%, affecting Canada's GDP by $1.6 billion. If we were able to get a harmonized or mutual recognition system in the trucking industry, that would literally make almost every product in our country cheaper. At a time when we see grocery prices going through the roof, and an affordability crisis, would that not be something great for Canadians to have?

The Prime Minister could have made bold decisions. Instead of these little baby steps along the way, he could have made bold steps, such as repealing Bill C-69, which would have allowed projects to be approved, which would have allowed those national projects that have forever stitched our country together, a country that started with the railroad that built our country. We need those national projects both for our economy and also to bring us together, to unite us. Those projects will continue to be extremely difficult in the absence of a repeal of Bill C-69.

Quite frankly, although the building Canada act may get more projects built, would it not be more sensible to instead tear down the framework of Bill C-69? The last decade has proven the government cannot get major projects in place. Build it down, restart the process, open up with a one-window project, not just for those who are friends of Liberal insiders but for all Canadians, for all proponents who are willing to throw down their hard-earned money in order to build national projects.

Instead of the Prime Minister rising to meet the moment, to eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers, to bring our country together, to make our country greater and more prosperous, the government decided to take the easy way out and make small revisions to interprovincial trade that will not accomplish it. Instead of saving the Canadian economy billions and creating more prosperity from coast to coast, it will merely be another photo op, another wrong step along the way towards interprovincial trade, towards making Canada a truly free trade zone.

Here is to free trade in Canada on the Canada Day when Conservatives have a majority government.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the fantastic member for Northumberland—Clarke.

Before I talk about the actual merits of Bill C-5, I want to set the stage a little. The so-called one Canadian economy act is being brought in allegedly in response to the threats from the south, from President Trump, but it is disingenuous, at best, to say that that is what this is about. The crisis that is facing Canada is really a result of the last 10 years of a pretty incompetent Liberal government, and I will just talk about a few facts to back that up.

Let us talk about housing. Housing prices have become completely unaffordable. Most young people do not believe that they will ever own a home in their entire lifetime. In Ontario, my home province, we now have one million people regularly using food banks. This is a shocking increase from what it was a mere 10 years ago, when the number of people using a food bank in Ontario was about 350,000. Over the course of a decade of Liberal government management of the economy, the number of Canadians who are using a food bank has more than tripled. It gets worse because, again, 10 years ago, the number of people who were full-time employed and using a food bank was about 8% of those using the food bank. It is now 25%, so that has also tripled.

This is the backdrop of what has been going on in Canada after 10 years of the Liberal government. The Liberals like to say that they are a new government, but in fact they are not. The government is almost entirely composed of the ministers who were responsible for the files that created the challenges that exist today.

Now, the so-called one Canadian economy act talks about labour mobility, which is a critical issue. For a tradesperson in Canada, it is very difficult to go from New Brunswick or Newfoundland over to Alberta, where there may be work, or from Alberta over to New Brunswick or Newfoundland, if they are looking for work. This is because there is no standard set of safety standards across the country. Each province has its own safety standards, whether it is about working in confined spaces or working from heights. People may have certifications in their home province, but those certifications would not be recognized when they move to another province for work. That is a problem, because it could take them three, four or five days to meet these allegedly different standards within their trade, and therefore people would be going three, four or five days without pay. I know. I have travelled across the country. I have met with skilled tradespeople in the unionized sector, and this is a huge problem. It is a big disincentive for people to actually travel across the country to go where the work is.

When the Liberals talk about how we need to remove these interprovincial trade barriers, labour mobility is a huge part, and there is a simple solution. It is one that we actually proposed in the election. We said we would create a blue seal standard for these things across the country, so if people are certified to work from heights in Ontario, if they met that standard, they could go from Ontario to B.C., because they would have met this new standard.

The problem that we have is that the government did not do that in this alleged labour mobility bill. The Liberals are not taking the real step. It is just another example of a lot of talk. It sounds good that they are going to improve labour mobility, but when we actually look at the bill, it would not actually do anything it says. It promises to improve labour mobility by recognizing provincial occupation certificates federally. That would not help the plumber who is trying to go from Ontario to B.C. for work. That actually would not do anything for them. It is the same thing with any other skilled trades. The Liberals had a real opportunity to do something to make the lives of working Canadians better and to make labour mobility easier, but of course they declined to do that, so this is a major miss.

When the Liberals are talking about how we need to get the economy moving, they should have taken real steps to improve labour mobility, especially in the skilled trades. Those of us who spend time meeting with our tradespeople, the people who build and maintain this country, know that there is often a boom-bust cycle to that. The projects may be booming in Ontario when they are not necessarily booming in Manitoba, so the ability to move from one jurisdiction to another in order to be gainfully employed is critical.

This is not a new issue. This has been talked about for almost a decade, but the Liberals have lacked the political will to actually create a standard that would be recognized by all provinces, a new federal standard in the skilled trades for those types of safety things, as I said, like working in confined spaces or working from heights. If the Liberals did that, they would open up labour mobility for our tradespeople at a time when they absolutely need it.

Projects that the Liberals say are going to be spurred along by this piece of legislation have been delayed for a long time; they are not moving forward. Many people in the skilled trades are finding it hard to be employed, but they could be employed if they could move from one province to another. This is an absolute failure by the government, which says it is a new government that will take on new challenges. The Liberals have absolutely walked away from the challenge of labour mobility with this piece of legislation.

While we talk about the challenges with people in skilled trades, I would be remiss, as the shadow minister for labour, if I did not talk about the Liberal plan for modular housing. The Liberals now tout this as the big solution to housing, which, of course, it will not be, but one thing it would do for sure is take away jobs from our skilled tradespeople, especially our unionized tradespeople involved in housing construction: the plumbers, the carpenters, the pipefitters. They are the ones doing all the work to build houses, and now the Liberals want to take that away and have modular houses built in factories where there will be no skilled trades. This is going to have a disastrous effect. We are not going to have Red Seal carpenters working in a factory to build modular homes. The members across are laughing, which displays their ignorance on how the trades work and the general disregard the Liberal government has had for trades, especially for unionized tradespeople.

This brings me to another point, which is that for the first time in Canadian history, there is no minister of labour. This is a pretty shocking discovery. The Liberals are going to say they have a guy; he is the Secretary of State for Labour. However, it is like the person who sits at the kids' table at the wedding. They are kind of there, but they do not really matter that much. They are not at the big person table, which is the cabinet table.

What have unions said when they describe this? Joseph Mancinelli from LiUNA said, “if the Canadian government wants respect from labourers, perhaps let's start with a Minister of Labour”. He went on to call it a “slap in the face”. This is what it has been described as. Even CUPE said that it is “not just disappointing, but frankly insulting.” When we look at the lack of labour mobility in the bill, which is allegedly supposed to help; when we look at the Liberals pushing for modular housing, which will push out the trades; and when we look at the fact that there is no minister of labour, people in the labour movement know exactly where the Liberal government stands. Do not even get me started on taking away the right to strike through section 107 referrals. This is a government that has absolutely no respect for labourers and unions in this country, and the labour unions know it.

Now, let us talk about the one aspect of the bill that I find particularly troubling, which is the ministerial designation. The minister would get to pick the proponents of these projects. How could we ever think this is going to go well from a government that was responsible for the green slush fund and GC Strategies? Now the Liberals would get to pick the people who get these billion-dollar projects.

Imagine the corruption and graft that will go on with a government that has been awash in nothing but corruption and graft for the last 10 years. This will be corruption unlike we have ever seen. The minister is going to say he is going to pick one company to do a project. Can members imagine the corruption that is going to go on? If GC Strategies was able to turn $60,000 into $64 million, what is going to happen with a $1-billion project that a minister gets to pick? The green slush fund was Liberal insiders giving money to other Liberals while the minister stood there and did nothing. Actually, no, that is not true; the minister got promoted. The ministers responsible for GC Strategies got promoted too.

What did the Liberals learn? It is that turning a blind eye to corruption gets rewarded, and now they say this is how they are going to create the one Canadian economy. Yes, it is going to be one Canadian economy for Liberal insiders who get to line each other's pockets with these big fat contracts, just as they did with the green slush fund and just as they did with GC Strategies.

The bill would unleash a tidal wave of corruption and graft that the Liberals will hand out to all of their friends. It is not what Canadians need. It is not what unionized workers need. It is not what tradespeople need. It is another big, fat failure by a corrupt Liberal government, not a new Liberal government but the same old Liberal government that is going to reward its same old buddies with these big fat contracts.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

This is a critical time, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I do not think people realize the extent of it. The public does not understand, and neither do the members of this House.

We have only been sitting in this House for three weeks and the government is already imposing a gag order, even though it is a minority government. The bill under closure has not been debated. There has not been a single hour, a single minute, or even a single second of debate, and they are already imposing a gag order on us.

Normally, when a gag order is imposed, it is because Parliament is deadlocked or because there is a real emergency, a fire is raging and everyone agrees that it should be passed without a hitch. However, that is not the case here. What is worse, they want to impose a gag order on something that will be profoundly transformative. Passing this bill will radically change how the federal government functions and how major projects are approved once presented to us. That, too, is cause for concern.

Even more concerning is that the wording of the motion states, among other things, that parliamentary committees will have only a day and a half to examine the bill, and that witnesses will be heard at a time when it is no longer even possible to propose amendments. That is crazy, but that is what is being presented today and what a majority of members in the House seem prepared accept, on both the Liberal and Conservative sides. I am rather surprised by all of this, because it is a denial of democracy. The government is trying to ram through a bill that was never publicly debated. Almost no member of civil society has had the opportunity to carefully analyze or comment on the bill, including the media and experts in the various fields affected by the bill's provisions. The fact that the government is already imposing a gag order on us is really very serious and problematic. Keep in mind that this is a major bill, not some harmless little piece of legislation.

What is the aim of this two-part bill? We do not have a real problem with part 1, despite the somewhat provocative way in which the Liberals presented it. This part, which deals with the free trade of goods and services and labour mobility, is ultimately not a bad thing, since it involves the federal government withdrawing from certain jurisdictions. The federal government is recognizing provincial jurisdictions and telling us that it will not get in the provinces' way. The government is removing barriers. In fact, it is removing its own barriers. I personally do not want any federally imposed barriers, and I do not think many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues do either, so that is a good thing and we support it.

Part 2 is another story. That part requires a very thorough analysis, and that is why we really want to split this bill. Part 2 of the bill would essentially make it so that certain laws do not apply to major projects that are deemed to be in the national interest. What are those so-called national interest projects, and how will they be chosen? Well, we just do not know. The bill provides some indications, but it does not specify exactly what those projects are, nor does it define the criteria. The criteria in the bill are suggested criteria. They are recommendations. The minister can choose whether to consider them or not. It is up to him. That is absolutely crazy, but that is how it is.

In theory, the criteria are to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. However, these are non-binding objectives. The minister can basically do what he wants in terms of the application of these criteria. The decision is at his discretion. The minister makes a list, and that is that. He decides which projects will be exempt from the law.

How do projects get on that list? It is done by order in council. That means there is no public debate. No one can question whether it is a good or bad project. The minister can wake up one morning and decide that it is a good project. He does not need to ask anyone's permission. Actually, that is not quite true. He has to consult the first nations and the provinces, but all he has to do is consult them and that is it. He does not have to do anything else. He just has to consult them and that is the end of it. What does it mean to consult? It does not mean that everyone agrees. It does not mean that Quebec agrees to be steamrolled. It does not mean that the first nations agree to have projects imposed on them. It just means that someone talked to them about it first. That is all that it means. On the basis of consultation alone, the minister can decide that he has enough information to proceed with an order in council and make the project in question a priority. He can circumvent everything and disregard laws that we thought were unassailable.

What happens when a project is on a list? The project is automatically approved. It had not even been analyzed when the Governor in Council issued an order for the project to be added to the list and approved. It stops there, no public debate, no questions. Before it is even debated and reviewed, before any environmental assessments are done, without any regard for processes, the project is automatically approved. That is real progress.

What legislation would not apply to these major projects? There is a whole list in schedule 2 of the bill. There are 33 statutes, including the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and the Impact Assessment Act. As if that were not enough, there are also regulations that are not automatically applicable to these major projects. We are talking about the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022. That is scary enough. We might say that, with a list like that, anything goes.

However, that is not all. Clause 21 of Bill C‑5 states that the Governor in Council may, by order, add any other act or regulation to this schedule, without any public debate, without going through Parliament and without consulting anyone.

What could those acts be? What acts could be affected? It could be the Official Languages Act, and then bilingualism and francophone rights would no longer be respected. The government could add the Canada Labour Code and not comply with it for these major projects. It could no longer comply with the Income Tax Act and people would not have to pay taxes. It could no longer comply with the Criminal Code. That is not written in the bill and it does not say that the government will do that. However, if it chooses to do so, the way this bill is currently written would allow it. That is completely scandalous and unacceptable. I cannot believe that my peers in the Conservative Party of Canada, or anyone else, would support this and say that there is no problem, that they would hand the government a blank cheque and that the government could do whatever it wants for all eternity.

Worse still, it shows that this government is taking cues from the government south of the border. What we were critical of and what everyone wanted to be protected from was a government that acts arbitrarily, imposes its agenda without consulting or listening to anyone, and governs by decree. What we have before us is a government that wants to govern by decree. How are projects chosen? It is by decree. How are the criteria set? They are being set by the minister alone. How can existing laws not apply to major projects? They are excluded by decree. This government wants to govern by decree, and now it wants to impose a gag order. It is unacceptable for a Parliament to pass such legislation. This bill absolutely needs to be thoroughly studied in committee by experts. This bill undermines our democratic institutions and public institutions. Worse still, it would put this government in untenable situations where it could easily be influenced by lobbyists with their own particular agendas. The minister would be very susceptible to this, because there would be no one to block him and no checks and balances.

I could go on at length, but, unfortunately, I am out of time. In conclusion, I would say that shutting down debate on the motion before us is just one reason for that, so I would like to move an amendment that could make it a little better.

The amendment reads as follows. I move:

That the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (b)(ii), by replacing the words “at 3:30 p.m.” with the words “at 10 a.m.”;

(b) in subparagraph (b)(ii)(B), by replacing the words “until 5:30 p.m.” with the words “until 11:59 p.m.”;

(c) by adding the following after subparagraph (b)(ii)(C): “(D) the following people be summoned to appear as witnesses for a minimum of one hour each at one of the two committee meetings:

(i) the Prime Minister,

(ii) the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy,

(iii) the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade,

(iv) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change,

(v) the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations;”.

All those people could come explain the bill to the committee. We would also—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Liberals and the Conservatives, who have so eloquently demonstrated, through Bill C-5, why Quebec needs to become its own country, even though even though we already had plenty of arguments to support that.

We are witnessing another blatant multi-party attempt at nation-building and using crises to further centralize power, which is second nature to Ottawa, as we have always seen throughout the course of history. In the past, it was railways that were used as a sign of national unity, and today it is pipelines.

Do the Conservatives plan to sue the Liberals for plagiarism?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite, probably more so than any Conservative member, and maybe she could even be the new leader of the Conservative Party at some point, tries to portray a false impression that in the Harper horror years, the Conservatives were able to develop an inch of pipeline to tidewater. They did not. Not even an inch of pipeline went to tidewater.

When we take a look at Bill C-5 and the April 28 election, it is important for us to realize that a very clear mandate was given to all political entities in this House to build one Canadian economy. Does the member not agree that the essence of—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it probably would surprise people that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I have had a good working relationship from time to time, even though we, too, disagree on many different issues or the approach to them, based on our different perspectives and also on the differences between the people we represent. That is the wonderful democracy and diversity of Canada, is it not?

I absolutely, 100% agree with the member on this issue, just as we agreed about Bill C-69. It is specifically why I am saying that the Liberals must amend Bill C-5 to include transparency on the project list and to ensure that all the things they say the bill will do are actually in the law. As the member has pointed out, all that matters is what is actually in the law. Hopefully, we all can work together as opposition parties to get these guys to fix their workaround.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's respect in appreciating working with our friend from the Bloc Québécois. The Greens love working with the hon. member for Lakeland too. People will be surprised, perhaps, though not the member for Lakeland, to find that I voted against Bill C-69 because I think it is really terrible legislation.

One of the things that I think the member for Lakeland and I both believe, and we may find we agree, is that legislation around environmental review should be based on factual criteria that are established in law, not press releases, and that we should keep political discretion to an absolute minimum.

That said, I am wondering, since the member has read the legislation, Bill C-5, how on earth she can vote for it on this abbreviated bulldozer time frame.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's comments. I particularly appreciated the list of suggested improvements. It certainly deserved more than 30 seconds in a 22-hour speech.

The member made the comment that facts do not always fit the narrative and that that was very concerning for her, so I just want to put a few facts on the table that she omitted in her speech.

From 2015 to 2023, global oil and gas production grew 5%. Over the same time, Canadian production grew 29%. That does not really sound like Canada falling behind the world; it sounds like Canada being a leader in the world.

From 2006 to 2015, the time of the last government, not a single pipeline was built. That is another fact that I think needs to be on the record.

Let us not talk about the past, because Bill C-5 is about building the future. It is about building the strongest economy in the G7. Even in a world that uses less oil, demand for Canadian oil will continue to grow, because we and our partners work in an environmentally and socially responsible way. My home province of Alberta understands this. That is why we were the first to introduce an industrial carbon tax in 2008—